......he picks a "pro-choice" running mate??

Of course, this question is directed at those of you who are voting for Bush. Don't bother answering if you are going the other way....anyway.

Personally, for me......it would be the straw that would break the camel's back. I'm having to look everyday anyway for a reason to continue to support him.

That would do it for me though. Might have to support the Buchanan/Keyes ticket then.

Also.....what do you think of those gas prices?? Notice how quiet the politicians have been about it?? I'm paying $1.70 a gallon!!

Want to know why they are quiet?? Because three weeks ago....in the midst of rising prices.....they passed a five cents a gallon tax increase on gas!!!

My local politician was just busting the phone company for their high phone bills because "it was hard on seniors." Geez.....and like paying $1.70 a gallon for gas is a piece of cake for them???

Jim Spinnati is exactly right.....what a bunch of Jeroboams!!!

I'm about tempted to just vote for anyone who currently isn't in office now. In fact.....I like that idea.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Answers

D.Lee.....and Lee.....

I agree with both of you wholeheartedly!!!

If Bush picks a pro-choice candidate....he is done. Most Christian conservative have already vowed....they simply won't vote.

I would never encourage people not to vote. You can still vote....by writing in a candidate.....or pick one of the other alternatives.

Lee you are right about it becoming increasingly difficult to be involved in the political process. It reminds me of the Roman era when things had become so corrupt that Christians simply withdrew from society.....and then were charged with "anti-social" behavior.

Of for more Christians today who are "anti-social!!"

Amazing isn't it?? We boast of bigger churches and bigger "numbers"....and yet never has the church had so little influence on society.

I'm convinced we are more interested in our churches in being "user friendly"......as opposed to be in the business of making every thought captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10).

D.Lee....do me a favor....and tell your friend "bravo" about the "flyers." He was right on!!

How in the world any Christian who believes even a shred of what the Bible says could have voted for Clinton is beyond me.

And by the way.....Clinton had ZERO to do with the economy!!!! It was the Repulican majority who kept him from taxing us out of existence.

Remember.....in '93 he passed the largest tax hike in the history of the US. He would surely have done the same until he was stopped in '94!.

I'm not a huge Repuplican fan either....but people need to quit giving Clinton credit for something he never did!!!!

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

It does my heart good to see all you Christian folks who have such a good grasp of govt. and politics. I'm serious!! I appreciate all your thoughtful reflection.

The latest name being thrown around by Bush is a Tom Ridge of Pennsylvannia.....an avowed "Pro-Choicer."

When questioned about it and warned that pro lifers would defect Bush acted as if he didn't even care stating...."He was reaching out to moderates."

BTW....you know what a moderate is?? Someone who has no conviction about anything!!

Christians must make a stand this time. I agree....defection may mean the election of Al Gore.

But then....four years from now.....maybe the next Republican candidate will take us seriously!!!

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

THE TRUTH ABOUT GAS PRICES!!!

Here it is folks.......the truth about the rising gas prices.

It IS NOT the oil companies. (Their profit margins continue to only be about 12 cents per gallon.)

It IS NOT George W. Bush...."the big oil man."

It IS NOT a broken gas line in Michigan.

It IS NOT a supply problem.

It IS NOT the cost of refining the new fuel.

The rising gas cost lies SQUARELY ON THE SHOULDERS OF.....you guessed it......Slick Willy and Alpha Gore!!!!!

It seems back in the spring that Slick asked the Opec nations to raise the cost of oil.

The reason?? So that other oil producing countries could do the following......

1) Raise their prices 2) Raise their profits and thus.......(here's the big one) 3) Pay back loans made to them by the United States!!!!

So here the tax payers get a double whamy!! We paid for the loans....and now we pay for the gas prices.

The big deal?? The absolute impossibility of this administration to tell the truth about.....ANYTHING!!!

Keep in mind one other thing......GORE LOVES HIGH GAS PRICES AND WANTS THEM EVEN HIGHER!!! (Read his book..."Earth in the Balance.")

How one single Christian person could vote for Clinton or continue to vote for his croonie.....is beyond me.

And gee......we haven't even discussed the abortion issue.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000

Dan.....

It is unfathonable to me that a "Christian" person would even question the evil of abortion. In my church....I would seek church discipline against a pro abortion person.

When Roe v Wade was first passed in 1973, medical science had not yet determined the question of "when life began." That issue has now long been resolved. Almost to a Dr....it is agreed that "human life begins at conception."

If then, it is human life....that is all that needs to be said. Even the Constitution of the United States gurantees certain inalienable rights to all human beings.

As per the issue of pro-capital punishment....there is no inconsisteny at all (except in the minds of those who use it for a smoke screen).

Over and over again the Bible is replete with references to the evil of the "shedding of innocent" blood. Is there any more life that is more innoncent than the blood of an infant in a womb?? The Bible is extremely clear on the fact that a murderer has forfeited their right to life.

Hunters are often told not to shoot at movement in the bushes. You must indentify your game clearly before shooting. It must be assumed that the movement in the bush could very well be another person...therefore, do not shoot blindly at movement.

From YOUR point of view, you are not sure when life begins. Therefore, don't you think the child (not the fetus) should be given the benefit of the doubt....unless you can conclusively prove....it is not a living soul???

You see Dan....it is not an emotional issue. It is a matter of respect for life.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Connie....

You were doing great....UNTIL.....the Carla Faye comment....then your logic becomes full of the exact holes liberals often accuse Christians of.

MOST EVERYONE repents on death row.

The Biblical fact is....personal repentance has NOTHING to do with the forfeiture of one's physical life.

A perfect example was the thief on the cross. Jesus did not say...."OK....you've repented....get on down!!"

Think with you head Connie....not your emotions.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

What it all says to me is.....Bush took the Christian pro-life vote.....VERY SERIOUSLY!!!!

I think that speaks highly for "the salt of the earth" that enough was enough......and we were not going to take it being rammed down our throats anymore.

G.W. believed us when we said we would go elsewhere!

I admire Bush more now. He went against all the "conventional wisdom" that said he should have picked someone more to the center and he picked someone more in line with his convictions.

I firmly believe he will win now in November....if for no other reason....the Clinton fatigue in the country is very strong. I believe Americans, in the end, or going to vote for men that can restore a tread of decency back to the Whitehouse so that again the presidency can be called...."the highest office in the land."

Now, more than ever, Christians have a chance to show their might at the polls. I would love to see a landslide victory for G.W.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

I am make my write-in candidate....

Danny Gabbard...

Let's See....

Gabbard-Saffold in 2000!

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Brother Danny:

You have again picked a very good time to ask an important question for those Christians who vote to consider.

I am not very involved in politics but I do vote. I can say plainly that I do not vote for anyone who supports the deliberate and intentional MURDER of children in their mother's womb, even if the murder is committed with the mother's permission. Is is a vile sin, an evil cloud hanging over a pretentious "Christian Nation"! Any Christian who supports this murder in any form will face God in the judgement along with the evil muderers that they supported.

Therefore, I for one, will not lend my support to any candidate that is complicite in these millions of murders that are committed "legally" in this nation every year. I may have no one to vote for if Bush choses a "Pro-choice" candidate. In fact it is clearly more and more difficult for Christians to be involved in this so called "democratic process" where we are expected to be tolerant of everyone except those who are not "tolerant". I do not now nor will I ever "tolerate" murders! I do not now nor will I ever tolerate evil in this land or in any other place that I find it, especially when it seeks to find it's way into my live which it persistently does. "For you have not resisted unto blood in striving against sin." The Lord has overcome the evil one and in the last day those who even remotely supported evil will be punished with "everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power." I may stand alone or with a few but I do not intend to be counted among God's enemies now or when life is finally over on this sordid and sinful world in which we live.

SO to those of you who intend to lend support to any "pro-choice candidate" ask yourself if God wants a Christian to "rationalize" murder as those who are "pro choice" have done and if God wants a Christian to support the deliberate murder of children while they are yet in their mother's womb? Those of you who will give your support in any way are evil in your hearts and you will face God in the judgement and you will answer for those deeds. And do not forget that "EVERY transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward" and "how shall we escape of we neglect so great a salvation" as our Lord has offered in his granting us the opportunity to turn from evil. ( Heb. 2:1-4) Shall we be like "dogs that return to their own vomit"? Or shall we become "pigs who have been washed" but have now returned to "wallowing in the mire"? 2 Peter 2:22. Even one vote, willingly and knowingly cast, for someone you know to be a supporter of this evil of murdering children will suffice to condemn you before God almighty in the last day. Read 2 Timothy 3:1-9 for an accurate description of the people of our time and our nation this very day! I urge us all to "turn away from such evil" men! To give them your vote so they can rule over you when we are to be the "salt of the earth" and "a light set on a hill that cannot be hid" is surely removing the savor of the salt and a darkening of the light that was intended to point the way.

Let it at least be said of you as it was of Lot who "vexed his righteous soul daily" ,over the sins of the people among whom he lived ,who were very much like those whom we live among today. Let us not forget that God sent fire from heaven to destroy those men and all who supported them. Do you think for one moment that a "pro- choice" candidate would have been popular in Sodom? I can assure you they would have been. Do you think that a "Gay rights advocate" candidate who was "tolerant" of all would have been popular in Sodom? Think of it brethren, would you have perished with Sodom if you held views similar to the views our "Neo sodomites" of today hold now? Would you have perished if you held the opposite view but lended support to those who practiced such evil because it was "politically correct" to do so?

Those who support homosexuality and murder are supporting "Neo- Sodomites" who are imatators of an evil Nation that God destroyed completely leaving none living but Lot and his sons and their wives, who did not support them. Even Lot's wife had the urge to look back on that evil city for some unknown reason and was turned into a "pillar of salt". Is it possible that she "sorrowed for them" or is it possible that she "supported them in her heart" or is it possible that she had been secretly practicing the very evils for which they were condemned? I do not know, she may have simple been unable to resist the temptation to watch those evil men burn and suffer their just reward! But in any case she died with them! And there is surely a very GOOD REASON why our Lord admonishes us to "REMEMBER LOT"S WIFE". We are told by Paul in Romans 11:22, "Behold now the goodness AND THE SEVERITY OF GOD." We live in a time among a people who have been lulled into a hynotic sleep to the hypnotic sounds of "God loves you", "God Loves you" "God loves you". But does anyone stop to think, when or if they ever "remember Lot's wife" that "God loved her too"? But he still turned her into a pillar of salt. Does anyone doubt that God "loved the sodomites any less than he loves us? But he destroyed them with fire from heaven. The same God that love us and sent His Son to die in our place is the one who will one day destroy this world and all the evil that resides in it! ( 2Peter 3: 8-13). Then Peter tell us, "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give dilegence that ye be found in peace, WITHOUT SPOT and BLAMELESS IN HIS SIGHT. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation;" 2 Peter 3:14.

Beware, brethren, we will be judged by God and we cannot love God and support evil in any form for any reason! Period! It is that simple. Let us do good to all men as we have opportunity and let us yeild to Christ as our only ruler and let us be ruled by him. We have no need for a "King" to rule over us we have the "King of Kings" ruling our lives right now. SO that if I have no righteous man that I can vote for to be the president of this nation (which will perish with all of the rest of the earthy rule of man over man), I will not be forced to vote for an unrighteous one!

Let us be the "salt of the earth". Let us pray for the dying children who's tears we cannot see and who's cries even their own mother's refuse to hear! It is appauling to anyone who has a just perception of the reality of it all! All who are Christians that have ever supported this evil should HANG THIER HEADS IN SHAME and repent and ask that God be merciful to them and never again speak a word in support of this evil! Let us turn from the hypocricy that attempts to make this all "good" because some of these "young mothers" are too young to face such responsibility. Let us turn from those who act as if this is all "ok" because times are somehow "different". It is a blantant and open evil that no Christian can support and remain a faithful servant of Christ. So those of you who support such be it known that you have become "enemies of Christ" and you will not find mercy from God unless you repent of this evil.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2000

Danny,

You have brought up a very interesting topic. One I have often thought about, though I have not been into politics much myself.

I have heard it said several times that it is a Christians duty to vote. To vote even if there is very little in the matter of choice concerning the morals of the person. I wonder how many have heard It is better to vote for the lesser of two evils than not to vote at all?

But on more reflection, I have to agree with Lee when he says

Beware, brethren, we will be judged by God and we cannot love God and support evil in any form for any reason! Period! It is that simple.

And

SO that if I have no righteous man that I can vote for to be the president of this nation (which will perish with all of the rest of the earthy rule of man over man), I will not be forced to vote for an unrighteous one!

Why should a Christian vote for evil at all?

A friend of mine put flyers on the windows of all the cars at his churchs parking lot one Sunday after Clinton was elected the first time, because he was hearing several people talking about him being good for the economy. The flyer asked how a Christian could in good conscience vote for a man who openly admitted to being pro- homosexual, pro-abortion, and so on. They were insulted, offended, and furious. Not because of Clintons beliefs, they knew of Clintons stance on certain issues BEFORE they voted. They were so upset because any would dare to question them at all. Clintons moral stance mattered not at all because they thought their pockets would be lined with a little more money.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2000

If??? wrong word, try "when". I thought of majoring in polisci (political science) before coming to my senses, and the process still excites me occasionally.

Reading between the lines in this case is easy -- it's not a matter "if" Bush will pick a pro-choice candidate, but who it will be.

Furthermore, if Bush is elected and if gets to appoint two or more Supreme Court Justices, at least one will be pro-choice. Bush has refused to make abortion a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments, and has done nothing to placate those worried about his refusal.

And it is likely that Bush would appoint the pro-choice Republican Colin Powell as Secretary of State. As Secretary of State, Powell would oversee U.S. interests in human rights -- including the rights or non-rights of the unborn overseas.

Bush has refused to rule out these possibilities, and won't unless a viable threat emerges to the political [social conservative] right of him.

Alan Keyes is aware of this, and that is why he has refused to release his delegates. He hopes that he has enough delegates, combined with some defections, to influence the party platform and force Bush to not challenge the pro-lifers with a pro-choice VP nominee at the convention. I don't think he has enough and in the name of avoiding a public fight, defections won't be significant. Watch for the pro-life plank of the party platform to be weakened or eliminated this summer, in the name of "inclusiveness".

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Just remember:

The alternative is Al Gore.

But we can do the right thing and pray for our leaders, obey our laws, and pay our taxes, with a heavy emphasis on the praying.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Actually, we have a more alternatives than Al Gore.

Remember that ours is a system of checks and balances. The concerns about Bush and the possibility of the election of Gore shows us more than ever we need to work on the checks and balances on the executive branch, i.e. Congress, and to a lesser extent, the states. This isn't just the short term -- remember that the candidates for 2004 and 2008 are going to come from a pool not much larger than the current governors and the U.S. Congress. The governor or senator your state elects this year might be a candidate in 2004, 2008 or 2012.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Mark:

Definitely, I agree with you that the members of Congress are extremely important. The alternatives there might be Dick Gephart in the House and Teddy Kennedy in the Senate.

The ones who REALLY concern me, though, are the Supreme Court Justices. They are appointed by the President and have a VERY LONG reaching influence over decisions.

Keep praying; We're going to need it.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

The Supreme Court Justices might be appointed by the President, but they must be confirmed by the Senate. A solid group of pro-lifers in the Senate who will vote against any pro-choice leaning nominee might give any President second thoughts about who he nominates.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Yes, but the problem is that even the ones who are there are teetering.

When Roe v. Wade was passed, it was by one vote on the Supreme Court. Voters in 47 states had rejected it, but it was made law on a 5 to 4 vote.

With Patrick Buchanan in the race, while solidly pro-life, he will do for the Republicans and the pro-life cause what Ross Perot did for the same in 1992: elect the Democrat, in that case Bill Clinton, and in this case, Al Gore. The Green Party and Ralph Nader may take from the Democrats about the same number as Buchanan will from the Republicans. But pro-lifers had better not count on it.

The Democratic party does not seem to be divided on the pro-life question, but the Republican party is becoming more and more so.

And Al Gore has stated approval for the earth deity, Gaia. And we KNOW the positions on abortion of any justices HE'LL nominate.

This election is pivotal in history, as we are all aware.

The bigger problem in the meantime, is the fact that Clinton is giving and selling our country's military secrets to China, and anyone else who will pay for them. The Justice Department is in the pocket of a completely immoral and amoral person. We're in trouble.

Of course, God is directing history, so it will be interesting to see how things go.

Bill and Hillary's very good friend, Elizabeth Holzman, a former Congresswoman and friend from their college days, said on one news- talk program back at impeachment time that our Constitution is for 'horse-and-buggy days' so we know where TPTB are coming from.

Even some Republicans are willing to jettison our country's self- interests for economic gain. It's sad. The one-world government will come into being ~ it's just a matter of whether it will be sooner or later.

Watching and waiting ~ and praying.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Congress has a power which it has yet to use, although if things keep going the way they are they may eventually be provoked to doing so ... and I pray they do! Congress has the power to impeach Supreme Court judges!

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Yes, John, but I would think that the first impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice (at least in modern times) would certainly be for felonous criminal activity, not for what some would call a disagreement of opinion.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one being used in the battle over abortion.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

So true Mark, all you have to do is look at the last impeachment attempt.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

For an alternate candidate with strong conservative views (Howard Phillips) see www.constitutionparty.com There you will find complete information on the Constitution Party including the entire platform document. There are other links available to check out other party members. Please read the Platform document. You should find it interesting and thought provoking. It is amazing that they do not try to hide what they think on the issues. Fresh air for today's political environment.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Keith,

It may be worth mentioning that some in the Constitution Party are trying hard to recruit Alan Keyes for the V.P. slot. Keyes hasn't said no, and those in the Keyes camp say Keyes doesn't want to even acknowledge their invite until after the Republican Party Convention.

Sounds like Keyes holds out hope that the Republican Party will come around, and he is trying to help it do so.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Returning to the Supreme Court subdiscussion within this thread:

abcnews.com has an interesting article on the Supreme Court, with speculation that the next President may appoint FIVE justices. To abbreviate the reasons

Age -- John Paul Stevens, 80, William Rehnquist, 75, Sandra Day O'Conner, 70.

Health -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 67, is fighting colon cancer.

Rumor -- Antonin Scalia, 64, is rumored to be considering leaving the high court despite his relative youth.

And apparently both major candidates are prepared to appoint justices early in their terms. Both camps have leaked names: Bush is supposedly considering J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson III from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Edith H. Jones adn Emilio M. Garza from the 5th. Gore is speculated to be considering Jose A. Carbranes of the 2nd apellate circuit, Yale law professor Drew S. Days III and Stanford Law School dean Kathleen M. Sullivan.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

O-o-h, Mark!

That information is scarier, almost, than what will happen on the first day of the Tribulation.

Waiting, watching, and praying,

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

As great as it would be to have the perfect candidate, we are stuck with human beings (at least until the millennium ~ the REAL one).

The winning candidate will come from one of two parties ~ the Republicans or the Democrats.

Think out each scenario very carefully. Our government's survival depends on it.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Question: When faced with the probability that the winning candidate will come from one of two parties, should the Christian pick the lesser of two evils, or should he continue to support a Godly candidate, even if he is the only one to do so?

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

Well, for ten years I didn't vote at all, because I was tired of holding my nose.

The only thing political required of a Christian is to pray for our leaders, obey our laws, and pay our taxees.

I've been voting since the mid-50s, and I've learned a few things. (This is including several third party cabdidates).

1:) Third parties don't win. ....................................

2:) Neither candidate keeps his word. ...........................

3:) Politics do not solve our problems; only God does. .........

4:) We are sometimes more disappointed in OUR candidate than we ever dreamed we would be. ........................................

Watching and praying,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

Typos:

'taxes' and 'candidates'

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

cnn.com has an interesting vp sweepstakes going on. They said they did this in 1996 and it predicted correctly who Dole would pick for his running mate.

CNN.com is currently running the Republican VP sweepstakes. It runs in a NCAA March Madness kind of way, with 32 candidates initially running in four regional brackets: Beltway, Northeast, Southern, Midwest/West. Within each bracket, the candidates are seeded, and they play it out to advance to the final four. In the first round, Beltway: (1) Colin Powell defeated (8) Alan Keyes, Dick Cheney (5) beat Bill Bennet (4), Elizabeth Dole (3) beat Lynne Cheney (6), and John McCain (2) beat Gary Bauer (7). Northeast: Tom Ridge (1) over Rick Santorum (8), Susan Collins (4) over Olympia Snowe (5), Christie Whitman (3) over John Rowland (6), and George Pataki (2) over Paul Cellucci (7). Southern 1st Round: Connie Mack (1) over Jeb Bush (8), JC Watts (4) over Steve Largent (5), Frank Keating (3) over Jim Gilmore (6), and Fred Thompson (2) over Bill Frist (7). Midwest/West: Chuck Hagel (1) over Pete Domenci (8), John Kasich (5) over George Voinovich (4), Chris Cox (3) over Jennifer Dunn (6), and Dick Lugar (2) over Steve Goldsmith (7).

Second Round, which concluded Sunday: Beltway - Powell defeated Dick Cheney, E. Dole over McCain. Northeast - Ridge over Collins, Whitman lost to Pataki. Southern - Watts upset Mack, Fred Thompson rolls over Frank Keating. Midwest/West - Kasich upsets no 1 seed Hagel, Lugar squeaks by Cox.

Regional championships are underway, voting concludes Friday: Beltway - Dole (3) 305 , Powell 283. Northeast - Tom Ridge (1) leads George Pataki (2) big, 342 to 217. In the South, J.C. Watts (4) holds a thin lead over Fred Thompson (2), 290 to 278, while in the Midwest/West, #5 seed John Kasich is humilating the 2nd seed Dick Lugar 383-178. To participate, go to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/veepstakes/.

The current round concludes Friday, the Final Four begins the next day. The Democratic Veepstakes starts July 5th.

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

Sorry, that's http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/veepstakes/

Current <2:18 EDT> Beltway: Powell 420 Dole 418 Northeast: Ridge 471 Pataki 314 Southern: Thompson 413 Watts 397 Midwest/West: Kasich 535 Lugar 244

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

Powell may beat Dole, but that will throw the final results off because Powell won't run.

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

In response to the question would you vote for Bush if he chose a running mate who is pro-choice.....

I have to say yes!! it would clinch my vote for him, if only because it would give support to the pro-choice side.

After all isn't that what America is all about FREEDOM OF CHOICE with the associated responsibility for ones actions?

Come to think of it didn't even God give man freedom of choice with the responsibilities for ones own actions?

Mr. Saffold refers to abortion as murder I am wondering if he has anything scriptural upon which he makes such an assertion

I suppose my real question do the unborn have a soul? and what scriptural reference can validates that supposition

I still have problems with solving this issue in my mind

thanks for any assistance anyone my be

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

Regarding D. Prentice's Bush, Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Running Mate, the confusion over the soul of the unborn child only one response can clear this up for you comes from God's Holy Word in Psalm 139... Verse 13 For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written. The days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

I would not vote for Mr. Bush if he nominated a pro-death/choice candidate for his running mate! Cut and dry. I am not sold on Mr. Bush completely either. One wrong move and he's a gonner. What next? Well, I have to vote! It is my duty as an American Citizen and in the early days of our nation, it was considered Treason not to Vote! Yes, we were founded on the principles of the Bible, the one and only Book of God. Read the Constitution and its Amendments, and the Bill of Rights! It's all there. No other nation has survived as long as we have under these principles and been blessed as we have. How quickly we forget the liberties and freedoms we enjoy, unlike precious Elian, pray for him now. God still hears our prayers.

Regarding the high gas prices...Bill Clinton went to OPEC and asked them to lower production so prices could increase. For the benefit of foreign countries who owe us money. We pay the higher price to give them the money to pay us back. This is a documented report from Syndicated Columinist David Limbaugh. Kept secret by our 'loyal', liberal press. You can access this information from Newsmax.com and click on David Limbaugh. I am politically 'involved' to some extent, more than most, less than some. I love this area as I need to be informed of the issues to be able to write my Congressmen and Senators on issues important to me as an American and a Christian. If we do not get involved, we will lose our "Freedom of Choice" very quickly. So much has happened in the 18 years I have been active. We are losing at every turn our "Freedoms", I listen and read, not always loyally, but I believe God allows me to be knowledgeable of those issues which are important for me to know and be able to act on. We all must do our part. It is scary to first get involved whether calling our elected officials on the phone, or writing a letter of our concerns. Even to a Presidential Candidate about his running mate. You need to contact his office and let your voice be heard! There is NO! Choice here. Either you use your free voice now, or have it shut in the time to come! We in America are the only, the ONLY nation where we have a FREE choice to make our voice be heard!

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

I like the motto and verse of the 'Pro-Life movement:

Deuteronomy 30:19: NASB

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. SO CHOOSE LIFE IN ORDER THAT YOU MAY LIVE, YOU AND YOUR DESCENDENTS.

I know that is addressed to Jews, but as a grafted-in Jew, I have appropriated it.

Pray for our leaders, pay your taxes, and obey your laws. And this year, VOTE.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

Well, the latest I heard on the "running mate" issue is that Bush plans to announce who he would appoint to key cabinet positions before the election.

The heart of this strategy apparently is to show his hand on who his top advisors would be on the issues that Bush is considered weak. For instance, Colin Powell is now expected to be named sometime in September as Bush's nominee for Secretary of State if he is elected.

Interesting strategy, but would it backfire? For example, Powell is a known pro-abortionist. As Secretary of State, would he continue Albright's efforts to label "the denial of a woman's right to choose" a human rights violation? How does that influence the election?

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Dear Connie and Judy

i know that this is an emotional issue for many people and the Deut. and Ps. texts are how many people choose to justify thier feelings on the issue, however the only reference i have ever read in the scriptures pertaining to man recieving or becoming a living soul is in Gen. where God breathed into Adams nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul.

I have understood from the study of that passage that when Adam took in his first breath that recieved his spirit and became alive.

I have also wondered how a pro-death penalty party like the republicans (of which i am a member) would even hesitate about the pro-choice debate.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Dan,

I think the difference between the 'Pro-Life' and the 'Capital Punishment' postitions, (in my thinking) is the mentioning of 'innocent life'.

Capital punishment was initiated by God in Genesis.

I come from a background of liberalism (although anti-abortion) ~ politically, not morally ~ and all of my siblings (4) are against capital punishment. That is more because of our pacifist background, and not wanting to harm anything or anyone. (The 'Bambi' syndrome ;- ) ). (Also, because until my brother was old enough to do it, my dad had me hold the beaks of chickens while he killed them for our dinner. I HATED that job.)

But when I became a Christian, and read the Scriptures, I discovered that God is the one who ordained it, and I DO feel a tremendous sympathy for the victims (the real ones).

I DID feel that Carla Faye Tucker should have been pardoned, because of her real repentance, but the law had to be upheld, I guess.

Killing babies is, to me, a most grievous sin.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

I think somewhere in the minor prophets it talks about the Lord forming the spirit of a man within the womb. And John the Baptist was most certainly alive in the womb when he leaped for joy at Mary and Elizabeth's meeting.

There are some really good commentaries at the Stand to Reason website on the Christian view of abortion, if anyone cares to read them, at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/index.ht m.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Goodness, thank you, Danny, for such a reasonable response. And you are correct: even though an individual may be eternally forgiven, the price still has to be paid temporally.

I DO, being a woman, often respond from my emotions, rather than from my reason. I believe God has given us that capacity, and indeed, has that attribute Himself.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Unfortunately, too many women respond with their emotions at the voting booth, which is why Clinton got elected twice and Bush has a fight on his hands even though he's running against a tree-stump. *Sigh*

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

John,

In the voting booth, I try to use only reason. And I don't think we can blame only women for electing Clinton. (Remember, he only got, I think, 43% of the vote).

It was those third party voters for Perot, many of whom, as I recall, were men.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Concerning capital punishment...here is an excerpt from a sermon I preached through the 10 commandments. This is from the sixth in that series.

Genesis 9:6-7 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." (NIV) The Lord is speaking to Noah here. He is speaking to him shortly after him coming out of the ark and there is the establishing of a whole new race and society. God is establishing the regulations to govern this new world.

First, let's settle this fact. Those words in the ninth chapter of Genesis have never been rescinded. Now people may draw their conclusions and Christians may think themselves as somehow having advanced beyond that basic directive. That is not part of the Mosaic code or law, that was a decree for an era in human history and we are still in it.

Now please capture this, the first murder, Cain kills his brother Abel, and God does not apply that law right there. It hadn't been made yet. And what God does is rebuke Cain. There is a banishing from the midst of the circumstance to where he was enjoined. He's sent away, he's marked for it, but he isn't killed. And the result of that before you go several generations and they pass rapidly in the book of Genesis in terms of how quickly you come upon them in reading the text because it spans centuries in only a matter of verses.

And you come to a man named Lamech. Lamech says this after he killed a man, "Well God didn't do anything to Cain after he killed a man, so he won't do anything to me seventy times seven then." And by the time you go two more chapters in the book of Genesis, the whole earth, the Bible says, was filled with violence that God had to push the button.

How did it get there? Because God's mercy in the face of man's dealings at this issue of not being able to handle that mercy got to the place that it compounded itself to such viciousness that all you could do was to be done with the whole thing. And so God says, this go around we're gonna make this rule because man doesn't seem to understand mercy. It's not that God wants to lop a number on somebody who killed somebody else.

Let's illustrate that very fact contemporarily because we live right now in the middle of this being the problem of our society. In the last half of this century, we have steadily as a nation, state by state it's been done, have made in the interests of what we've perceived in our systems (and I understand the line of thought) to be more humane. Capital punishment is inhuman. I mean, who wants to be responsible for frying someone in the electric chair? Nobody.

But the principle of capital punishment was established by God to preserve a society from what is the inevitable trend that takes place. By whatever means it happens it became more violent and destructive in that ancient day, and if you'll look, in this last half of this century as we have state by state rescinded capital punishment, we may feel smugly that we have in some sense become more humane, but we have become blind as a society to the viciousness to which we scrape from the womb by the tens of millions children and feel ourself unaccountable for having extinguished those lives. And the streets of our nation are filled with violence, bloodshed, and death. So that beyond any nation on the face of this planet, we have more murders per capita than anybody else.

But we sure don't have that barbarous practice that you can find in the Judeo- Christian religion and ethic  we don't have that barbarous practice of capital punishment!

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Black Oklahoman congressman J.C. Watts won CNN's "Veepstakes" for the Republican nod. Anyone know anything about him?

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Ok ... did some checking on my own, and so far, I like this guy. On his website, he prominently mentions his own family and his Christian faith as being most important to him (he goes to a Baptist church, and is a former associate pastor and youth minister).

The ACLU has him on their "hit list" on their website, as he voted against them in all 6 measures they had interest in this year, and in the 104th congress he only sided with the ACLU's opinion 3 times. He voted for the partial birth abortion ban bill both times (the ones that Clinton vetoed), and he voted yes on a resolution supporting an Alabama judge who continues to post the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall despite a higher court's ruling that it was unconstitutional. He is apparently also against flag desecration, for parental notification, for lower taxes and welfare reform, for tougher sentences (he voted for a "tough on crime" measure that the ACLU was also against), for school vouchers, and against gay marriages. These are from his voting record in the past two congresses.

He is chairman of the "American Renewal" political action committee, which supports supports conservative candidates for federal office who stand for fiscal responsibility, moral leadership and a strong national defense. From the American Renewal PAC home page:

"American Renewal PAC envisions an America that is free of the shackles of a deteriorating welfare state, an America led by those who believe 'character is doing what's right when nobody's looking.'"

What do you guys think?

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

I thought of putting this on the 'Humor' thread, but thought it might fit here better:

Two boll weevils grew up in South Carolina.

One went to Hollywood and became a famous actor.

The other stayed behind in the cotton fields and never amounted to much.

The second one, naturally, was known as the lesser of two weevils.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ;-) ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

And John,

I LOVE J. C. Watts.

I also like Lindsey Graham of South (North?) Carolina and Tom Campbell of California, neither of which is under consideration. Tom Campbell might be a liberal in some respects though, I am not sure.

Lindsey Graham won't be considered, probably, because he supported John McCain.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Hello, All,

So what are your opinions of Dick Cheney?

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

I hadn't read all the posts here, but want to add a couple of comments, hopefully which haven't been mentioned already.

1) I think all Christians should vote regardless of who is running. Until there is a "none of the above" on the ballot, by NOT voting the worst candidate who has the best political machinery is guaranteed to win. I seem to recall a quote about if good men do nothing then evil wins by default. We should investigate the candidates, and make an intelligent, reasoned choice. I don't like the "pro-life only, pro- this only, pro-that only" argument. If we lived in a PERFECT world, then yes, that is what should be voted for. But since we live in a system which is imperfect and is based on compromise to accomplish goals we must participate to keep the evil in check. (I'm talking politics here, not spiritual issues. I am not pro-choice. But I am realistic, and know that if Christians refuse to vote for anyone but pro-life candidates, then the pro-abortion folks win by default. They will be unopposed, because they will manipulate the system. Its already happening folks.)

2) There are more parties in this country than just Democrats and Republicans. The greatest myth is that we live in a two-party system. We actually live in a 10 to 12 party system. What is ignored is the Libertarian Party, Communist Party, Green Party, and others. (Whether you agree with their ideologies or not, they still exist as recognized parties.) No one is FORCED to vote Dem or Rep. In fact, it would be a good wake up call to those two if the people voted in a record number of independents to congress and other offices. I really think that there should be a Christian political party. That will never happen though because as soon as it starts to take off the Pat Robertson's and the Pat Buchannan's will try to take control of it, which will make the party appear to be full of far- right religious ding-dongs, destroying all credibility. What the Christian community needs is strong, reasonable, rational leadership based on scriptural principles.

3) And yes, we should vote with our principles rather than our pocketbooks. The church should be ashamed that Clinton won...either time. We need to remember that we get what we pay for. It was common knowledge that he had poor character, so there was no excuse, other than that the Democratic party's political mechanism worked really well to sell the lie.

Ok, end of opinion. I can't tell you how to vote, but I sure encourage you to vote.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

Dr Jon,

I have been studying this issue some since this thread has come up. The decision I make regarding this issue will impact the decision I make whether or not to vote this year. I want that decision to be based on biblical principles.

I do not understand your following comments coming from the perspective of biblical principles

1) I think all Christians should vote regardless of who is running. Until there is a "none of the above" on the ballot, by NOT voting the worst candidate who has the best political machinery is guaranteed to win. I seem to recall a quote about if good men do nothing then evil wins by default. We should investigate the candidates, and make an intelligent, reasoned choice. I don't like the "pro-life only, pro- this only, pro-that only" argument. If we lived in a PERFECT world, then yes, that is what should be voted for. But since we live in a system which is imperfect and is based on compromise to accomplish goals we must participate to keep the evil in check. (I'm talking politics here, not spiritual issues. I am not pro-choice. But I am realistic, and know that if Christians refuse to vote for anyone but pro-life candidates, then the pro-abortion folks win by default. They will be unopposed, because they will manipulate the system. Its already happening folks.)

How can a Christian vote regardless of who is running? I believe this to be directly against biblical teaching. You say that you are talking politics here, and not spiritual issues. I ask, how can Christian separate or put aside biblical doctrine and teachings just because the arena we find ourselves in at the time happens to be political? This we can not do!

If Christians vote regardless of who is runningand I believe many do what will happen is exactly what happened in the last two elections. You will have Christians voting just as the world does, which is for economic reasons. What can this guy do for me? I personally have seen it happen.

Arent we a people called out, called to be separate? Christians should not vote for the lesser of two evils. I site the following scriptures as the basis for my arguments:

2 Cor 6:14-17 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."

II Jn 1:7-11 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

Rev 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

Rom 16:17-18 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

Danny,

aren't we glad that the scenario posed in your original question did not come to fruition?!

Connie,

I went to the CNN site, and heres what I found

Dick Cheney has a very conservative voting record.

Believes government roll in social areas should be limited.

Supported legislation to balance national budget.

Opposed federal funding for abortions  no exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

Opposes gun control limits.

Sounds like a man a Christian can in good conscience vote for.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

I can remember wanting Cheney to run in 1992, but there was the talk about his health.

Dr. Jon,

Let's keep in mind why Clinton won that year: Ross Perot's 19%.

Clinton got 43%, if memory serves.

Let's keep in mind how professional the liberals have been at trashing people. They will do the same with Cheney.

While I don't feel there should be discussion of political issues from the pulpit, there SHOULD be Christian issues emphasized so that people can vote intelligently.

I don't see anything wrong with providing for people to register in a church, away from the sanctuary, either.

You can be assured that the Democrats will be registering young people old enough to vote in any way they can.

I personally am thrilled that GWB has selected someone on principle rather than for political expediency.

Our prayers should be rising like a sweet savor to the Lord.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

I was afraid I might be misunderstood with my comments. I still firmly believe that Christians should vote regardless. Our politial system is one of COMPROMISE, not PRINCIPLE. Sometimes you have to work withing the framework for what already exists. Until that time that the Christians of American raise up THEIR OWN CANDIDATES and vote in RECORD NUMBERS which will OVERWHELM the evil Democratic AND Republican parties (and yes, I regard the platforms of BOTH PARTIES as evil, because they do compromise on key moral issues) then we must decide on the lesser of two evils and find the candidate who indeed does have the most character and morals and who represents the party who claims to have the strongest ethical basis.

The real issue is of course that politics is not the answer. Its not even the problem. The real problem is the Christians in American themselves. (Which was one of my other points.) As long as America worships the dollar instead of God, and prosperity instead of principle, we will continue to get what we pay for. For the American Christian, the problem is rampant carnality, and the only solution is genuine repentance and turning to God (such as mentioned in the ronicles quote so often used). But since America is technically a non-Christian or a post-Christian nation, morality in government is not possible.

This attitude is really consistent with my previous posts. I have been a student of the late 19th century revivalists, and the changes which occurred in American society then were the direct result of Christians returning to true Christianity, embracing personal holiness, and attacking the ills of society based on conviction born from knowledge of the Word of God. The changes made in American society (like child labor laws, and other beneficial rulings) were the result not of politics but of personal conviction which transformed itself into practical action.

Now, having said that, I base my first opinion on these 'observable constants':

1. Christians in American AS A GROUP will never repent, and will continue to be carnal.

2. True bible-believing Christians who act on biblical-convictions will continue to be a very small minority.

3. America at-large will continue in its downward spiral to paganism and post-Christianity.

4. The radical liberal elements of society will continue to refine the lessons learned from the 60s and 70s, and continue to perfect their political machinery to the point where they will be basically unopposed in their agendas.

My conclusion: Christians and those with principles must vote. Our voting in record numbers may be the only holding action that prevents the agenda which opposes biblical morality from winning and becoming the law of the land. Short of TRUE REVIVAL (which I personally am pretty pessimistic about)our best course of action is to attempt to vote in such a manner as to prevent that which we KNOW is evil from taking hold of our society.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Yes, Dr. Jon, and we should try to register as many young voters as possible (who have Christian views) because the democrats are registering the DEAD! (I lived in the Chicago area in 1960 when the votes of dead people counted). The election was stolen from Nixon in Cook County (Mayor Daley's Chicago) and in Lyndon Johnson's home county in Texas). We always said that Daley didn't steal more votes than he needed, however; they were always close votes.

And the evils in society ARE the fault of comfortable Christians who are afraid to challenge the status quo. Maybe this time will be different, but I doubt it.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Hello Jon,

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your comments. I am trying to understand correctly, so again, please correct me if I am wrong.

You wrote:

I was afraid I might be misunderstood with my comments. I still firmly believe that Christians should vote regardless. Our politial system is one of COMPROMISE, not PRINCIPLE. Sometimes you have to work withing the framework for what already exists. Until that time that the Christians of American raise up THEIR OWN CANDIDATES and vote in RECORD NUMBERS which will OVERWHELM the evil Democratic AND Republican parties (and yes, I regard the platforms of BOTH PARTIES as evil, because they do compromise on key moral issues) then we must decide on the lesser of two evils and find the candidate who indeed does have the most character and morals and who represents the party who claims to have the strongest ethical basis.

You still believe Christians should vote regardless. I disagree.

When you say that the political system is one of compromise and not principle, I agree.

You say you regard both party platforms as evil, because they compromise on key moral issues and that we must decide on the lesser of two evils.

It seems to me that if a Christian compromises and votes for evil PERIOD, they are doing the same thing you accuse both parties of doingcompromising on key moral issues.

Are there really (biblically) lesser evils?

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

D. Lee -

I think we have a misunderstanding because of how I am applying an interpretation.

I do not believe that the scripture which says "be not unequally yoked" has anything to do with politics. It deals with personal holiness (see 2 Cor. 7:1. I think that is the key to interpreting these verses: "let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."), not politics. Rev. 18:4 refers to the false pagan religious system at the time of the Tribulation, not our political process. (Sorry (I really am too) but I don't think you can apply that verse for this situation.)

In my mind it is an ancient error to separate ourselves from the world by not having dealings with it. Remember, my thinking is tainted by my Roman Catholic background (which I try to rebel against whenever I bump into it). Non-participation because the world system is evil is the Roman Catholic error of monasticism. No where in Scripture are we told to NOT participate in life. On the contrary, we are to be "salt and light," which means that we are required to be active participants, being a part of the interpersonal interchange in daily life, and making a positive influence on our culture. Why would Paul exhort Timothy to pray "For kings, and for all that are in authority" if the Christian is not supposed to have anything to do with the world? A casual reading of the Gospels reveals that Christ's teachings were directed to show how to live IN the world, not to segretate ourselves from it.

Our nation is in the mess that its in because Christians for some reason decided that active participation in the governing process was "dirty" and somehow un-spiritual. So by withdrawing from the arena of life, the void left was filled by the amoral and the skeptic. We reaped what we sowed. I do not think that non- participation is the answer to our problem.

That didn't answer your question about biblically lesser evils, and I realize this. The problem with our poitical system is its LACK of a true or pure moral stance. Each party is really trying to please a broad consitutency, and pure ethics get watered down. But that was my point exactly. We live in an imperfect world, with an imperfect political system. My conviction on this is that since that is true, we have to find what is closest to my/our pure ethical base, and vote accordingly. I am not saying vote for just anyone for the sake of voting. The vote must go to the one who is CLOSEST to biblical morality and ethics. We never PUT ASIDE biblice principles. We must search for candidates who have them.

I am not advocating relativism. I am advocating realism. The United States IS NOT a Christian country, it IS NOT a theocracy, and it IS NOT governed by biblical principles. As long as true Bible believing Christians are the MINORITY, pure biblical ethics and morality will never be the law of the land. What we as Christians must do, politically speaking, is to be an active influence in our culture and nation, and work to see that biblical ethics and morality becomes the law IN SPITE OF THE UNBELIEVING MAJORITY. We are called out and separate. Our separateness has alot to do with our being able to see the spiritual battle clearly, unlike those in the world. We must use our clarity of thought and vision to influence the world, bceause those in the world are totally incapable of doing it themselves.

This in my mind is part of how we are "salt and light." We have to make our influence known. Being part of the process, not withdrawing, is one method we have to do this. How do I know this works? BECAUSE THE MILITANT FEMINIST AND HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS. They figured it out. The homosexual community is a very small minority but because they are active and vocal, they are dictating how the remainder of us must live, by passing laws which guarantee them special rights. As the Christian community slept on in its self-imposed cloisters, evil made great headway. So I can never accept non-action on the part of Christians as a solution to our current problems.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

Jon,

You are correct, I too believe our misunderstanding is because of how we are interpreting scripture.

You dont believe the scriptures I quoted have anything to do with politics, but only with personal holiness. I believe that we can not separate our personal holiness from that rest of what we say and do, no matter what area (be it politics or any other area) or subject we are involved with or discussing.

I did not say that we should ever completely separate ourselves from the world by not having dealings with it. This we know from scripture that we can not doas we must live in the world but not be a part of it. By this it is meant to not do the worldly things they do.

There are certain times in the Bible when we are told not to participate (not in life as you say) but in evil. I agree with you that we are to be The example, salt and light. This is not to say that we do what the world does. I can be light and still not vote for someone whom I believe to be morally wrong. I also agree with you that we are to pray for our leaders, this still does not necessitate my voting for one I believe to be in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible.

I do not believe that participation in the governing process is dirty or unspiritual. And I do not believe that a person is withdrawing from the arena of life by not voting for the lesser of two evils.

You have made several points that I agree with, concerning the lack of true or pure moral stance in our political system, and that we live in an imperfect world. And I do understand your point about finding what is closest to our pure ethical base and then voting accordingly. This I have done. I just do not believe it is right to vote as I said for the lesser of two evils.

You said: We never PUT ASIDE biblice principles. We must search for candidates who have them. I agree 100%! My solution, when I do not find a candidate who has at the very least moral values, is to not vote for them. One of those values I hold to is concerning the issue of murder. We all know it is wrong to kill babies. I could not in good conscience vote for any candidate who believed it was fine to do such.

It is a sad state Jon, and I must agree with you that the U.S. is NOT a Christian nation. And I believe as you do that we should be active in the political process. I believe Christians too can have an active voice, but one without compromising biblical principles. Now saying that, I understand that you do not believe you have compromised biblical principles. And I believe that if you thought I was doing something NOT from faith, you would agree that I should not do it.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

I think we are pretty much tracking on this. I hope no one was inferring that I was suggesting anyone compromise their personal convictions in order to vote. That is not the case. We have to vote WITH our convictions, like Mrs. D. Lee has said.

Short of open revolution in the streets, our vote is the only power we can wield to stop certain kinds of evil. Back in the 80s the solution was given, but for some reason to this date no one has heeded it. The church must raise up its own candidates which reflect biblical values and convictions, and then the same Christians who raised up a candidate must get out and vote for that candidate to ensure they win. I do not understand why "we" collectively cannot do that.

Now, of course, our battle is not against flesh and blood. But since in America we don't fight the spiritual battle either, we are running out of choices. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, but I am. The church as a whole in America is too busy infighting to be of any practical value to impact society. After some of the gains of the 80s, all was lost when Clinton et al came into office. Revival doesn't begin with arguing about whether or not women should be in the pulpit, or whether or not gays should be allowed in the church. Revival starts when the church in toto realizes it offends a holy God who put it on earth to do His will and fulfill His purpose, and the bickering stops, and all fall on their faces in true repentence admitting that the church in America is a sinful institution.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000